Miscellaneous desk
< April 22	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 24 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 23

Seeking Information on Passenger Ship Called "Carolina" sunk by the Germans in World War I

My mother was in a passenger ship called the "Carolina" during World War I and the Germans sunk it. I think it was going from Puerto Rico to New York at the time. I would like more information about it, couldn't find anything about it in the internet or in Wikipedia. MariaDelCarmenMilagrosDelRosario (talk) 00:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See the Wikipedia article SS Carolina and also Puerto Ricans in World War I#The sinking of the SS Carolina. More information on the site of the wreck is at Wrecksite: SS Carolina and a passenger list is here. Video of a recent dive on the wreck is on YouTube. An account of the sinking on this page says that the Carolina was sunk by shell fire from the surfaced U-boat and that "No lives were lost in the sinking but later life boat number five was overturned and 13 people were drowned." If you are a Spanish speaker (I'm guessing from your name!) then you'll be able to read this article: La tragedia del vapor "SS Carolina".

I searched for "SS Carolina" - the quote marks tell Google to look for the exact phrase only. Alansplodge (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Policy on unreachable references?

Hi. I was making some minor corrections to the Emily Benn article when I found that a couple of the references used lead to external web pages that are not accessible (e.g. this). I suspect that the page would be accessible if I joined/paid the site hosting the web page (in this case timesonline.co.uk). I have no reason to believe that the reference doesn't support the information in the article in question, however I'm worried that unreachable references could allow a loophole whereby information could be added to an article (either on purpose or by accident) which then becomes extremely difficult to verify. What is the policy on using references that are not reachable by the average editor (e.g. to paid sites)? Thanks in advance for any assistance that can be provided. GFHandel ♬ 00:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources behind a "paywall" are acceptable. See Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Links_to_sources. RudolfRed (talk)

The reason for this policy is that even today a great deal of scholarship in many fields is published either in non-free-access journals or in books (which also cost money). But many Wikipedia users (perhaps even you) will have access to these sites (or the printed version) either through public libraries or academic institutions. With news stories a free source may be preferred, since newspapers commonly all publish similar material, but if no free source provides the required information then a pay one is ok. Incidentally questions about editing Wikipedia should be asked on the Help desk not here. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond what Colapeninsula and RR have said, if there's specific doubt a source really says what has been claimed, it's generally acceptable to remove it pending verification. Bear in mind a paywall source is not necessarily more inaccessible then a book or newspaper article not archived online. For example someone living 100 km from the nearest library may find it at easier to use any Internet based source they have access to which may include paywall ones then stuff which may require them visiting a library. (Some may be able to get the relevant material emailed faxed or couriered but most likely not everyone.) in fact the reluctance of people to visit even a nearby library to obtain sources is often cited as problematic in terms of writing articles (both because it may lead to a bias in writing articles and systemic bias in our coverage). And of course even if you have access to the source, you can't verify if it isn't in English. Nil Einne (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A paywall doesn't render a source "unreachable" but merely inconvenient. In fact, citations to popular paywalled online newspapers like The Times or the Wall Street Journal are pretty easy to verify because many editors have subscriptions. A quick request at the help desk or the village pump (not sure which one would be best, to be honest) could get you the answer within a day or so. If it's not a controversial BLP issue that's more than fast enough, and if it is you can comment out the questionable content until you get corroboration. In fact, most big-city libraries have online subscriptions to the major paywalled papers, so you could even do the legwork yourself if you're near one.

There isn't a paywalled source in the world as difficult to check as the average Victorian-era non-fiction book, yet professionally edited and published books are normally considered valid sources. --NellieBly (talk) 18:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feminism

Why do feminists support porn even though it exploits women and encourages the patriarchy's view of women as sex objects? --108.206.4.199 (talk) 02:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who says they do? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Loaded question.--WaltCip (talk) 03:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you find it articulated that "feminists support porn"? Bus stop (talk) 03:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I want to know is why people always say porn's bad because it exploits women, but there's never any mention of the impact on men. Maybe we can assume from this that it's beneficial or at least neutral for any men involved. The porn that I would "theoretically" watch has no women anywhere in sight, so apparently it's home free. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 04:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the reaction to claims of exploited male porn stars would be similar to that towards teenage boys sexually exploited by their teachers, i.e. less than grave. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should let the people at the Feminist Porn Awards know about this exploiting behavior. Dismas|^(talk) 06:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The OP, who apparently lives in the Ozarks, suggests a belief in the ancient stereotype that divides women into "good" and "bad" (men apparently all being some of both), thus rendering women somehow incapable or unfit to define their own destinies. Hence, the second part of the OP's question ironically fits its own premise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow your logic on any point there, Bugs. Seems like an awful lot of assuming of bad faith about the OP's intentions. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not bad faith, but his entire premise is bogus. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To return to the actual question, pornography (and sex-work in general) is a divisive issue amongst feminists, and many do oppose for the reasons you submit. Many others meanwhile see sex-work, when chosen freely and undertaken in a non-abusive environment, as liberating and empowering, or at the very least as legitimate a profession as any other. Some people for whom feminism leads to an anti-pornography stance may still be opposed to pornography bans due to an anti-censorship position.

I think in general, the feminist stance against porn comes from opposition to abuse and exploitation in the industry. The division is due to where people draw the line on what is abusive or exploitative. For some, all porn falls into those categories and for others there are exceptions. Our article, Feminist views of pornography, should be informative. AJ Cham 16:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Asa Philip Randolph and Bayard Rustin

Why are they not listed as the persons deemed most relevant to the "Black American" movement. Each were instrumental in getting war contracts for Black businesses during WWII in 1941 and the integration of the military in 1948. Also, it was they who were the organizers and designers of the 1963 March on Washington. This march was designed at this time to commerated the 100th anniversary of the signing of the Emancipation Proclomation. 209.30.251.253 (talk) 05:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which article are you thinking of? A. Philip Randolph and Bayard Rustin both have their own articles, and both are mentioned in our article on the African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955–1968) and in Timeline of African-American Civil Rights Movement. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both are also mentioned Template:African-American Civil Rights Movement and have been for a fair while.... Nil Einne (talk) 16:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why the government of united states does not allow its citizen to go to travel in Cuba?I mean the wartime is the half a decade past.

Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 19:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought it was Cuba doesn't allow American citizens in. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether you meant that seriously, but taking it at face value, no. For that matter, as I understand it, it's not illegal from either side for US citizens to travel to Cuba. It's illegal under American law for US citizens to spend money in Cuba. See the Trading with the Enemy Act. There are lots of exceptions. --Trovatore (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. nationals need a license from the State Department to travel to Cuba and they are hard to get. See http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1097.html. The reason that these restrictions are still in effect probably has more to do with U.S. presidential politics than any thing else. Florida is a key "swing state" in presidential elections and there is a large population of Cuban immigrants in the state of Florida who don't like Castro.--agr (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. Note the wording on the website you linked, which is carefully phrased: The regulations require that persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction be licensed in order to engage in any travel-related transactions pursuant to travel to, from, and within Cuba. It doesn't say you can't travel there; it says you can't engage in any (presumably financial) transactions to do so. If you can get someone from Cuba to pay your whole way, I believe there is no US law preventing you from going. (As a practical matter, certainly, that's a rare case.) --Trovatore (talk) 20:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This may be true in principle, but in practice, the US Government has pretty much taken entry into Cuba as a sufficient sign of guilt to assess a large fine, typically $7500 in 2003. People so fined (which isn't common because the government doesn't put much effort into anti-Cuba enforcement against individuals), have the right to dispute it before a judge, at which point you could probably use the loophole you describe to argue that you didn't technically break the law. However, the time and money involved in making that argument, plus the threat of large fines, probably still makes the entire thing undesirable. Dragons flight (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine you're right about the practicalities (not that it's very likely to be able to go there without spending any money anyway). I would contest your use of the words technically and loophole, though. The stated purpose of the policy, as I understand it, is to prevent currency going to the Cuban regime. If someone from inside Cuba pays your way, it seems to me you've complied with not just the letter but also the spirit, or at least as much of the spirit as the government is willing to cop to. --Trovatore (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boycotting all non-democratic nations might be a good idea, to encourage them to reform, except that we need some of them, like China. Cuba, on the other hand, the US doesn't need, as there are dozens of other Caribbean nations available for vacations, coffee growing, etc. (Cuba may make the best cigars, but those are rather unfashionable in the US now, due to that pesky lung cancer thing.) StuRat (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The real question here, StuRat, is whether boycotting actually leads to reform. I suspect there is no evidence to support this, nor any reason to believe it. Most of the great revolutions and reforms in the past have come from places that have been given more access to other nations, not less. We have seen, time and time again, that isolation is a dictator's best friend. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it doesn't accomplish the goal of spreading democracy, it may at least limit the size of the economy, and thus military, of non-democratic nations, which in itself is a worthy goal. And one could also argue that one has a moral duty not to trade with a dictator, regardless of the results. Furthermore, trading with a nation doesn't seem to help bring about democratic reforms either, as in the case of China. StuRat (talk) 18:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All it did was drive Cuba further into the arms of the USSR. While the USSR was afloat, they had the military might to field troops in foreign wars, which is pretty impressive for an island nation. And China has become significantly more democratic as it has opened up to increased trade. It doesn't hold elections, yet, but it's pretty clear that the Chinese government is aware that unless it keeps things running pretty smoothly, it is in serious danger of public reprisal. That was not the case in their isolationist years at all. And I'm just not sure I see the moral argument... especially when the US was pretty happy to trade with plenty of other dictators during that time, and install a few of them of its own. The moral argument is especially flat if it turns out that not trading with dictators just keeps them in power and hurts their people—which appears to be the case. (Economic sanctions have arguably the same result, as many have pointed out, and there is yet to be any evidence of them actually working... ever.) --Mr.98 (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

China has become more democratic without holding elections ? That's a nice trick. To see the moral argument, imagine a really bad non-democratic nation, say the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia during the genocide there. Do you see why trading with them would be bad, even if it didn't work to get them to change ? Yes, the US did some bad things in the past, many aimed at containing the Soviet Union, but that has no bearing on what constitutes moral behavior now. BTW, Cuba's strength back then was due to heavy subsidies from the Soviet Union, perhaps being one of the things that dragged the Soviet Union down. StuRat (talk) 02:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat, even if we accepted that premise, it obviously doesn't apply here because the US trades with plenty of other non-Democratic countries, large and small. thx1138 (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you accept the premise, it then become a reason not to trade with those other nations, not to trade with Cuba. Cuba also is one of the few third world nations to have posed a serious military threat to the US, when trying to install nuclear missiles. North Korea is another, and the US doesn't much trade with them, either. So, this appears to be an important distinction. StuRat (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was in Cuba last year for 2 weeks with my wife. We travelled around the mainland for a week and then transferred to Cayo Coco, a small tropical island about 70 miles away from Florida. We met hundreds of Canadians and South Americans and not a few Chinese, as well as Europeans galore like ourselves. Yet amazingly, one of the larger groups we met were from the USA, and they were spending Dollars aplenty. Not $USD I hasten to add, but Canadian Dollars. It seems they go to Canada to catch a flight to Cuba where Fidel kindly promises not to stamp their passports either on arrival or departure. So the embargo against US citizens either not travelling to Cuba nor spending money there has an enormous loophole in it. And all the while, the Canadian and Chinese and South American Governments are getting their feet in the door - big time. 92.236.250.88 (talk) 11:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

United States embargo against Cuba. I'm not be a politician, because I don't understand the rationale. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 20:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struggling to think of any similar restrictions placed on any other regime by any other developed country. Unless anyone out there knows better. Alansplodge (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of countries that the US and others have enforced economic sanctions against. These are just a severe version of that. What's silly is to keep them on for so long when it has had really no positive effect for the US and shows no sign of ever accomplishing any particular policy aims (unless the policy aims are "keep Castro in power" and "starve his people anyway"). --Mr.98 (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, the former long-standing embargo against South Africa was somehow considered a good thing, by the same folks that thought the Cuban embargo was a bad thing. And vice versa. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

U.S passports mention restrictions against Burma, North Korea and Cuba. Rmhermen (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. hasn't been at war with Cuba in the last 5 years or 5 decades. Not sinces 1898 in fact. Rmhermen (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on how you define "at war". The Bay of Pigs and the Missile Crisis are in the neighborhood. The latter event is probably why we will remain at odds with Cuba until the Castros have croaked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AIUI the trade ban was originally instituted in response to the Cuban government's expropriation without compensation of property owned by US citizens. Roger (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard the Canadians fly right over expensive Florida resorts to enjoy cut-rate vacations in Cuba, which reportedly has rather pristine and appealing beaches. To avoid Americans doing the same, I think the U.S. will never repeal the ban. Wnt (talk) 00:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(I don't mean to minimize the severity of censorship in Cuba, and there is reason to object; but what kind of objection to censorship is it to keep ordinary Americans from mixing with the Cubans and giving them ideas?) Wnt (talk) 00:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is incredible how many people can support the embargo against our country,there is no reason to do that.CubanEkoMember (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WHERE DOES HE GET HIS STATS? (Re: Tons left for humanity to get rid of)

I look forward to the day when we no longer have any tons of it left. To be able to live a life free of this mandatory act of getting rid of it would increase the quality of life for sure.

However, Bonestructure says that there are 38,014,387,012.5 tons left for humanity to get rid of. How did he figure this number up?

Also, calculating the average size of each, together with the population, population growth rate, and other relevant factors, how many years would it take to get rid of that many tons? How many tons are going out of our bodies, collectively, every year? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahy, Ahy, Ahy, Ahy (talk • contribs) 21:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, what a dumb question. Humans are tubes of shit supported by bones and flesh and organs. Get rid of all the shit, and you're dead. Get over it. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

?"...left for humanity to get rid of". Shit is not cumulative, (except in some newspapers and governments) it continuously recycles by methods out of human control, like zillions of insects and fungi. There was shit which recycled itself before humans populated our earth. Some humans do help with the recycling, I use some on my garden (no, not mine!) and others sometimes spread it around the Reference Desk. Richard Avery (talk) 07:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you know that 57.3% of all statistics are made up on the spot? 'Nuff said. --Tim Sabin (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many studies have confirmed that assertion.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]